Thank you very much for taking the time to come and speak with us today. I just have a few brief questions.

First, one of the comments you made in your presentation was about the other cost considerations. Could you maybe give us a bit of a background on what those other cost considerations are, so that as a committee we can better evaluate where we think those costs will be from. As was mentioned by Ms. Sahota, maybe some of those are already covered and this number is not as big as we anticipate it being. That would be exceptionally helpful.

If you don't have them today, if you could provide them to the committee, it would be greatly appreciated.

My second question is this. It was mentioned that there has been some analysis done, but obviously this motion has been available to you and to others for quite some time now. Obviously, we're well into the second reading part of this. Is there a reason why the RCMP hasn't done a complete analysis, knowing full well that this committee is going to be considering this and the Government of Canada will need to consider it?

You have a Minister of Public Safety who is on the record frequently in supporting even municipal actions for firefighters and others and supporting these types of actions. Do you have an idea when that complete analysis would be available to us?

I'm not certain when the complete analysis will be done. We have to consider the priorities and the number of items and, with the provinces, what the priorities are. Our mandate is law enforcement. That is our mandate when we're asking for money from provinces and territories for what the requirements are when the standards are set. We're looking at hard body armour. We're looking at carbines. We're throwing in all these things that we require as police officers, and we have to remember that our mandate is that and move forward.

Yes, it's a piece of equipment. It's a piece of equipment that provides the service to save lives, yes, but at the same time we still have to balance that against all the other priorities that are there.

Mr. Chair, since this is an issue that Parliament is dealing with and the Minister of Public Safety has previously, prior to becoming minister, put motions forward with regard to these jurisdictional municipal issues, particularly on firefighters, maybe that's a question that his department should be answering for us as opposed to specifically the superintendent. I'll leave that with you to raise that with the minister, if you'd like.

I have one last question. I grew up in a rural community, Fort McMurray, Alberta. My father's construction company built the RCMP headquarters there, so I know about your presence in the north. Could we get provided to us at some point in time, because I'm confident you do not have this number today—if you do great, but I don't expect you to—what percentage of your rural vehicles have AEDs?

Obviously we have a lot of first responders in urban areas. We spoke with the Ottawa police earlier today and others. We know that they're the first responders. You have more of a responsibility in northern Canada as well as throughout the rural municipalities. It would be helpful for us to know what that percentage breakdown is, and specifically where they are, because there may be certain provinces that we would have to deal with in a more substantive way than others, based on the breakdown of where you're able to provide them or you're being supported to provide them, versus not.

I want to come back to the operational problem that our RCMP officers are facing in rural areas.

One the challenges we face is justifying putting defibrillators in every vehicle. Keeping in mind that the goal is to save lives and that is what the device is used for, this is a budgetary decision. Given the budget, the services, how far an emergency vehicle has to travel in rural areas, there is a good chance that the four to five minute window for optimal use of the device will be closed.

That it makes it justifiable to have defibrillators in as many locations as possible throughout the municipalities, either at the fire station, the town hall, or other locations. If there were one or two in every municipality that you serve rather than in every vehicle, where success is harder to guarantee, then we might get or hope for the same result. The device would be portable and someone might be able to save a life before an emergency vehicle arrives.

I think that, given the limited resources in some of the northern communities, they could be out on a call, while the incident could happen in the village or community. The device wouldn't be there because it would be in the police car that was out dealing with another incident that was an hour away.

To go back to my previous comments about accessibility to those devices, even if they're in a public place, it doesn't mean that the RCMP or any other medical response could not use them. They're there for everybody to use, so it wouldn't be limited. That said, when looking at those locations in some of those areas, again, it's accessibility. Is it at a place that's accessible 24-7?

RCMP officers are accessible 24-7, when they're on shift. I think there's an accessibility piece that we have to look at.

Besides Ontario and Quebec, where we do have provincial police forces, from an operational standpoint and considering a reasonable budget, money well spent would be in the municipality, instead of in the cars, for efficiency purposes and for the reasons that we use these apparatuses.

I think there might be a lot of factors to consider in the individual communities.

Sometimes the community, in consultation with the RCMP and their medical services, might be best to come to those decisions on their own, rather than saying that it's going to be here or it's going to be there. Collectively, the communities know their community base. They know the external areas and they know other areas outside. I think they would have a better perspective for providing that information in their own areas.

Before I thank the witnesses, I wanted to do a little follow-up on Mr. Reid's question and that is with contract policing.

I don't know much about contract policing and I don't know how the agreements are negotiated, but I assume there's some back and forth. When the contract is being negotiated, is there a section in the contract that sets out how police vehicles are to be outfitted or is that just an assumption that the police will provide a certain vehicle, with a certain set of specifications?